I knew Stalin married a Jєω, but I never thought he was one .interesting.
is there any way to reference that?

I've heard this reference, but without sufficient docuмentation.

and besides, he did purge Trotsky and the a lot of the Jєωs from the party during his rule in the S.U.

As a matter of fact, I believe some Jєωs brag about assassinating  him through his doctor, but again, that's more speculation. 

Personally, I don't believe Stalin was a Jєω, just another goyim born in the right place and the right time in history  to take a advantage of a situation and drunk with power. And Stalin was not intellectually smart, like a lot of Jєωs, but he was ruthless and instilled fear in the masses.

That can go a long way in politics.

I knew Stalin married a Jєω, but I never thought he was one .interesting.
is there any way to reference that?

Well, for one, he looked just like Borat, and what was Borat except another Jєω? The Soviet system was top heavy with Jєωs, and he was able to run it in such cool fashion as an "Uncle Joe", as (((Churchill))) another Jєω called him.

Harold Wallace Rosenthal confessed the Soviet Jєωιѕн situation.



In "The Plot against the Church", p.65  Maurice Pinay writes that, "during the second world war and from then on up to out present time the Jєωιѕн clique which rules the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, continues to be very numerous, for at the head of the names stands Stalin himself, who for a long time was regarded as a Georgian of pure descent. But it has been revealed that he belongs to the Jєωιѕн race; for Djougachvili, which is his surname, means son of Djou, and Djou is a small island in Persia, whither many banished Portuguese "Gypsies" migrated, who later settled in Georgia.  Today it is almost completely proved that Stalin had Jєωιѕн blood, althout he neither confirmed nor denied the rumours, about which mutterings began in this direction. footnote (14), Bernard Hutton: French Magazine "constellation" No. 167 of March 1962. p. 202.

In translating Georgian to English, his orignal name may also be spelled Djugashvili. Either way the name means "Jєωison", besides referencing an island in Persia called "Djou", as cited by Maurice Pinay. Vili means son and Dju-g, Djou-g, speaks for itself as how close it is to dJudah or dJєω?

It was also rumored in his time as Soviet dictator that his father who would visit him at the Kremlin on occasion was a Jєω. In one biography of Stalin I learned that he also had the nickname "Koba", which he enjoyed. The book explained to the innocent reader that "Koba" means bear and that was why Stalin was pleased with it. He would be like the Russian bear. But later I discovered that Russian doesn't have a word for bear like "Koba" at all. The word is medved or meed-vyeht. Other words for bear are not like koba either, but the Hebrew word for star is like koba, as in kokhba, or even Simon bar Kochba, "son of the star", who was a "messiah" "prince" of Israel who led a revolt against the Romans, etc. So one may conclude his nickname "Koba" was really to refer to the Hebrew lingo for "star", not the Russian bear.

It makes much less sense that he was an authentic ethnic Georgian of Christian family background who elevated himself to the top of the Soviet anti-Christ killing machine in such a secure way. Also it has been discovered that his mother has a Jєωιѕн burial shroud with Kiddush cup theme on her grave.

https://fitzinfo.net/2021/02/13/stalin-Jєωιѕн-grave-of-stalins-mother-adorned-with-Jєωιѕн-kiddush-cup-and-shroud/

"What Paul VI really said, then, is actually in contradiction to what Marshall maintains in his book and in his video, namely, that the “Pope” placed a disclaimer (“an asterisk”) on Vatican II, such that its teachings were not actually binding and could be questioned by the faithful, even rejected."

Do you question and reject Vatican II?

Did Paul VI say you could?


For those who don't have time to watch the 12 min video in the OP:


"Below we are reproducing the relevant passages in full. The parts Marshall did quote are rendered in blue font (the exact wording may vary somewhat due to different translations being used by our sources as opposed to Marshall’s), whereas the omitted portions are given in black. The most significant omitted parts are underlined:

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Paul VI, Closing Speech for the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Vatican.va, Dec. 7, 1965; underlining added.)
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.
(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here.)

What Paul VI really said, then, is actually in contradiction to what Marshall maintains in his book and in his video, namely, that the “Pope” placed a disclaimer (“an asterisk”) on Vatican II, such that its teachings were not actually binding and could be questioned by the faithful, even rejected.
For more information on a Catholic’s obligation to adhere to everything the Church teaches, not merely that which is proposed infallibly, see our post reproducing Canon George Smith’s 1935 article “Must I Believe It?”:

• Do Catholics have to Assent to Non-Infallible Church Teaching?

For more information about Vatican II and infallibility, please see John S. Daly’s blistering rebuttal of Lefebvrist star apologist Michael Davies:

• Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly? The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

It is important to understand that in Taylor Marshall we do not merely have a commentator making a hapless but innocent mistake about the authority Paul VI claimed Vatican II to have. We are dealing with a man who quietly omits text from a quote so that he can promote a position contradicted by what he omitted."



https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/

So given this quote:

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Paul VI, Closing Speech for the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Vatican.va, Dec. 7, 1965; underlining added.)
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.
(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here.)



is VII binding?

It says we have to accept it with docility because it is under the ordinary magisterium.

So when VII says that we worship the same god as Muslims, do we have to accept that because this is

"authoritative teaching"

which "weigh upon man's conscience and activity"

with "authority and force"

Bumping this post because I really don't know the answer.

Does this mean that VII is binding and we can't "resist" it?

You quoted PPVI:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.

The blue text is true, the underlined is false. Because the underlined is false, no, we are not bound to it.

The underlined above reminds me of and is right up there with PBXVI saying in his Motu that the NOM and the True Mass share the same Lex Orandi. Both statements are blatantly false.

Okay, so given that:

As Pope Pius XI put it in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.”


and Paul VI says:

"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents."

how can we refuse to accept, recognize and obey VII?

If according to Pope Pius XI

refusal to accept, recognize and obey

means we cannot "be" or "remain".

What Pope Pius XI says is of course the truth, but what Pope Paul VI said is not.

We Catholics certainly are obligated to "accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors" but this obligation of our obedience to the pope is not "blind obedience," it's "true obedience" or we can call it "holy obedience."

This simply means that we have to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority unless he should teach or command something which is sinful. Obedience to God always comes first in everything no matter what. This principle is inherent in absolutely everything, PPXI's teaching you quoted is no exception.

Check out the video below from Fr. Hesse, it's an excellent talk, mostly about true obedience. Well worth watching the whole thing.

He starts this video with what I put in my sig, and at 7:30, Fr. Hesse puts it like this: "It is therefore absurd to talk about obedience in any other context, but obedience to God first."

Also, maybe if they read their bibles, they would worship the one true God. They would not to worship with non believers.  You can co exist with satanists and witches. All Christians should protest the church of satan as a religion when in reality it is a hate group against Christianity. 

What Pope Pius XI says is of course the truth, but what Pope Paul VI said is not.

We Catholics certainly are obligated to "accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors" but this obligation of our obedience to the pope is not "blind obedience," it's "true obedience" or we can call it "holy obedience."

This simply means that we have to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority unless he should teach or command something which is sinful. Obedience to God always comes first in everything no matter what. This principle is inherent in absolutely everything, PPXI's teaching you quoted is no exception.

Check out the video below from Fr. Hesse, it's an excellent talk, mostly about true obedience. Well worth watching the whole thing.

He starts this video with what I put in my sig, and at 7:30, Fr. Hesse puts it like this: "It is therefore absurd to talk about obedience in any other context, but obedience to God first."

So what happened to the binding and loosing?

Now we pick and choose what we obey and what we don't?

Doesn't that make us "little popes"?

Isn't that how Protestantism got started?